On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 17:36 +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > Hi Andres, > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:56:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > > I'm also interested in taking it. Perhaps we could comaintain it and > > git-core? It's quite important for the kernel team (and others) to have > > this package. > > sure, let's see first whether we agree upon how the package(s) should > look like. Here's what I plan to do: > > o split the package into git-core, cogito, and also split off gitk: > source git-core with binary packages git-core, gitk; source cogito > with binary package cogito > o maybe split off git-cvs*, git-svn* also > o don't link against openssl: set NO_OPENSSL, disable --merge-order > in rev-list.c; link against libcurl3-gnutls (#321301) > o fix depends and change some depends into recommends
Sounds good so far... > o complete repackaging without debhelper or any other build system, I > usually use a simple collection of implicit Makefile rules for my > packages This I disagree w/; debhelper is quite valuable, and keeps a lot of the manual labor involved w/ package maintenance to a minimum. > o try to solve the git<->git conflict with gnu interactive tools, for > now keep the name 'gt' for the git wrapper I was thinking of just doing a conflicts w/ git; it would violate policy, but it should only be temporary. I wouldn't want to see git-core with 'gt' enter etch, have people get used to it, and then have to wait for git-core with 'git' to get into etch. Better to just keep the same name, and leave it out of etch for the time being (imo). > > Packaging generally shouldn't be that hard, I'll prepare packages and > post a link here, so you can take a look at it, ok? > > Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]